The Fiat 130 Coupe is one of the most attractive cars ever built. It took an emerging aesthetic and set a benchmark never to be equalled. And it’s probably the single most influential thing in the history of the downsized B-body. There, I said it. So did Bill Mitchell.

An outgoing Mitchell discussing the incoming B-bodies with Motor Trend in 1977.

Ok, maybe I was overstating it a bit, but can you think of another model he cited for the B-car shape?

The Fiat 130 Coupe was originally on track to look like this.

In effect, the 130 Coupe was to replace the already gone 2300 Ghia Coupe. Though the 2300 two-door had been a mild success, this six-cylinder space was not Fiat’s forte. The Fiat Dino range had been stuck in a perceptual rut; no-one really wanted a Ferrari without the prancing horse adorning the badge, let alone one with Fiat written on it.

The 130 Coupe’s intial shape took reference from the Dino; a hippy low slung three box coupe with faceting introduced. Pininfarina had prepared some fixed head versions of their production spider, the short cabin coupe bottom left being the closest to the proposed 130 coupe’s shape.

The man responsible for the Fiat’s shape was Paolo Martin.

Martin had begun his styling career with peripatetic freelancer Giovanni Michelotti, learning to render in the master’s style before earning his own signature on the work. Bottom right is the Hino Contessa which saw production.

Martin then did some work for Bertone under Marcello Gandini. The young Gandini was in the process of culminating the immediate past with the Miura before ushering in the future with the Marzal.

One offshoot of the Marzal was the 1967 Fiat 125 Executive concept above – the ur-shape for the 130 Coupe.

By 1967 Paolo Martin, right, had a desk at Pininfarina.

Some of his early work involved the highly influential BMC aerodynamic saloons. This concept had emanated from another recent Pininfarina recruit, Leonardo Fioravanti. While Fioravanti had been studying under Professor Fessia (of Lancia FWD fame), he had come to a streamlined solution for the four-door car. However Fioravanti was more of an engineer than a stylist, and required assistance with his concept.

In this case it was Martin’s hands intermediating.

Martin himself created Pininfarina’s showcar highpoint for the period – the Modulo.

This superb entry in the origami wars was one of the finest to demonstrate the use curvature with wedge. The arc describing the profile is pure circumference, but the section is masterfully positioned so as to create the forward dynamic. The wheel treatment stands out, particularly at the rear with the top flare adding crucial solidity to the form. The top-and-bottom shell with gap would make its way onto the Ferrari road cars.

The Modulo was Martin’s second best shape, marred only by a knock-kneed headlight treatment.

His third best shape would be the Lancia Beta Monte-Carlo, a nifty nugget in a handsome 2-box treatment that was first envisioned for Fiat.

It wasn’t all sunshine. The Pininfarina NSU Ro80 – yep, looks just like the drawing. He only has himself to blame for that one.

The Mercedes-Benz 6.3 Coupe commissioned by a private customer had more going for it. The proportions were right, but the surfaces were bland and the detailing off.

In 1968, a industrialist named James (subsequently Lord) Hanson called on Pininfarina seeking a Bentley Continental. The car was for himself, however he also had plans to show it to Rolls-Royce with hopes of reinvigorating a much cherished but sadly lapsed model. Pininfarina agreed to the project at cost price, £14,000 – double that needed to get one’s hands on the very desirable Mulliner Park Ward Two-door Coupe (subsequently Corniche).

Martin was assigned the task, grafting Pininfarina’s 365 GT 2+2 greenhouse over a crisper interpretation of John Blatchley’s Silver Shadow. It was not unattractive, but no match for Blatchley’s MPW two-door. Hanson’s proposal was declined.

In 1969 John Blatchley quietly yet abruptly left Rolls Royce, leaving a gaping hole. Eventually Fritz Feller would be brought in to take over styling, but in October of that year Rolls-Royce also approached Pininfarina for a two-door car.

Paolo Martin got the brief.

From what I can gather, the subsequent Fiat shape came to him at the same time as the Camargue’s did. He drew his revised Fiat coupe at the top of the drawing board while standing, and then sat down and did the Camargue on the same board underneath.

I can’t locate the Fiat drawings, and these are the earliest Camargue ones I could find so I’m assuming it paired with these.

You can see how the personality of the car changed. Where the first option was attractive and sporting, the second was more adroit and assured in its demeanour.

In the metal, it was sensational. A faultless symphony of clean planes and crisp edging with a scallop running along the shoulder line to meet a fold at the leading edge of the hood – an almost subliminal use of curves to give the shape more solidity. The over square headlights were commanding and distinctive, but for me the keystone element is the taillights.

For Fiat this was a big car. For the US, a compact – about the size of a 1960 Falcon.

The engine and drivetrain were made at Fiat, shipped to Pininfarina for body assembly, before returning to Fiat for finishing.

In 1972 the Coupe joined the 130 sedan in production. The four-door had been a house styling job, and in the words of one journalist looked like a 125 stretched two ways.

The sedan had commenced in 1969 with a 2.8 litre V6, but with the arrival of the Coupe this was enlarged to 3.2 litres. Aurelio Lampredi designed a completely new engine at the same time he was also developing the Dino V6. The Dino’s DOHC engine had to be modified from racing to road, but it would be too complex for the big Fiat sedan. So double-handling ensued and for a period of time people thought the 130’s engine was the same as that of the Dino.

The 130 received a SOHC arrangement and produced 165 bhp DIN. It was mated to a Borg Warner Model-35, though five Coupes made it to the road with a 5 speed manual.

The interior was nicely attended to, here’s one in my favourite colour and fabric – orange velour. The ergonomics were generally good, with a nice seating position and controls not too far away for a car from this period. The coupe received a different steering wheel to the sedan and standard were electric windows.

On the road, the bodies were too heavy for the engine. The car, independently sprung all round, drove reasonably well but wind noise at speed and lack of urge were serious shortcomings. Despite the gorgeous Fiat rasp from the exhaust, the engine was inadequate to the task.

The engine would eventually be enlarged to 3.5 litres, and inserted into a smaller 131 Coupe. The 031 Abarth put out 270 bhp and would go on to win the 1975 Giro d’Italia. But the engine was never used in the road cars.

One pleasing aspect of the 130 Coupe is that it looked like a Fiat. Maybe too much like a Fiat for some.

The origami wars were in full swing, dominating all the respectable automotive salons. Gandini and Giugiaro fought it out with beautifully-crafted razor thin sabres.

The house of Pininfarina had not distinguished itself during this period, the Modulo being its only real contender. There were some who murmured that the shape of the 130 Coupe was not the work of Pininfarina, that it had come from within Fiat.

It has been suggested Fiat stylist Pio Manzù created the final shape for the Coupe. He had recently come to the 127 hatchback before dying in a car accident. I have found the claim online that his drawings have subsequently disappeared, but in all honestly I don’t give this theory much credence.

Maybe Manzù did provide an alternative shape with a straight-through shoulderline, or maybe the idea was suggested to Martin by someone else, or maybe it was Martin’s idea alone.

However it got there, the final shape appears to be that of Paolo Martin.

Inside Pininfarina, there was much joy. The 130 Coupe had delivered a once-in-a-generation iconic 3-box for the carrozzeria. It followed in the tradition of the Lancia Florida, Battista Pininfarina’s personal favourite and a significant influence on the global scene.

It arrived within a flourish of similar coupes. The Peugeot 504 and Lancia Gamma each received handsome coupe bodies – both reflective of their respective marques, and both with the touch of Pininfarina. Neither as accomplished as the Fiat.

Comparisons with the 365 GT4 had the Fiat ahead. The Ferrari was rakish and attractive, but the plunging hood and chisel nose were out of keeping with the rest of the shape. It never seemed as cohesive as the Fiat.

The Coupe’s mastery is best demonstrated against the Pininfarina Peugoet 604, probably its closest related shape. Unfair perhaps but I’m using the four-door 130 Opera concept for comparison. The differences are minimal but worlds apart in execution.

It does go to a criticism made of the carrozzerie – that they peddle the same design over and over. To claim this is to not understand how the carrozzerie drew in business back then – a house style was the single most crucial marketing component.

But it was also one of the things that has led to the decline of the carrozzerie. The work they were themselves producing was becoming too generic.

When Rolls-Royce management saw the Fiat 130 Coupe, they were furious. While both shapes were conceived at the same time, Rolls-Royce didn’t get the Camargue into production until 1975. All they were able to do when they received the bodies was adjust spring rates to give the body more of a california rake. Apparently this change in stance helped the Camargue considerably.

Looking at Martin’s early sketch, it becomes clear the small things compounded as the shape transitioned to blueprint, and it changed the whole feel of the car.

Given the opportunity this brief presented, the result was a disaster.

The Fiat 130 had defined a new idiom, a large 3-box two-door car with this spare, angled language. Frua tried to best it with their 130 proposal (top right), but no. Tom Tjaarda’s Lancia Marica from Ghia (middle left) is said to have been an influence. Its tapering ends certainly look more akin the first 130 coupe shape. The Momo Mirage (middle right) came in with nicely chiselled looks, but it was bony where the 130 Coupe was full-bodied. The Longchamp/Kyalami disasters were just that.

The 3-box short cabin was the prevailing shape amongst the prestige marques. The Corniche the most stately, the BMW the most dynamic, the Jaguar the most purely-bred and the Mercedes-Benz the most brutal (in a pedestrian-friendly kind of way). None was as good-looking as the 130 Coupe.

The prestige Japanese coupes were progressing well at this time. The 230 Cedric took the US idiom and shrank it perfectly, and the kujira Crown falls out of the scope of this critical review because it was a semi-fastback. Both Opel’s BMW-6-series-in-waiting Rekord and the Ford Granada had attractive coupes, although the Granada looked better in the fastback option.

For the next generation of Granada, Ford would take a closer look at the Fiat.

Only two other 3-box short cabins from this period really stand out for me after the Fiat.

The first was Giugiaro’s dynawedge Colt Galant. Shaped for Mitsubishi without credit, it became his most satisfying 3-box four-door ever. And the coupe was just as sharp.

Giugiaro had taken Gandini’s 125 Executive language, and returned the compliment with superior prose. Though the shape of the production Colt is more homogenised than the 125 showcar, it is also an improvement. Despite its diminutive size and lack of recognition, a standout from the time.

The other standout was Joe Herlitz’s 1971 Plymouth Satellite Sebring.

Coming in towards the end of Mopar’s glorious fuselage period, it was one of the finest shapes to emerge from the US. It shared a hollowed extrusion aesthetic with the Fiat, but where the Fiat was square section, the Sebring used curves. So very, very well.

There are lessons in this shape for today. Herlitz’s sparing (but masterful) use of body flare should be noted by the instigators of the insane flamewars currently blighting the automotive surfacing scene.

For the most part, though, the personal coupe in the US was either Bunkie’s beak or Iacocca’s snout. Or sometimes together like with the Grand Prix.

Then came the colonnades and baskethandles…

The 1971 B-bodies had been the largest in GM history. They started very attractively, but by 1974 they were piling on the crustiness with too much bro-ham. While everyone seemed to bounce back from the oil crisis, wiser heads were starting to prevail.

By day GM was adding the gingerbread to the production cars, but by night they were working to another agenda entirely. Whatever authority Mitchell had on the downsized generation, it was not him alone pursuing this new spare language. These magnificent renderings didn’t look exactly like the 130, but then again nor did the 1963 Buick Riviera actually look like a Rolls Royce in the fog.

The influence is obvious, but the Chevrolet shape’s progression towards it’s own thing is quite dynamic.

Some of Pininfarina’s post-130 shapes were following in a similar vein, such as this proposal for the V12 Jaguar. As with the 130/604 comparison earlier, putting this against the above B-body sketches and below clay leaves this a distant second.

It’s a shame Chevrolet didn’t keep the thin rear pillars – they were an attractive point of difference against the 130’s thicker set and they framed the greenhouse well. Instead we got this.

And these.

The Buick LeSabre was the best-looking of the coupes. But it was still fussy at the front.

The Impala sedan was the best-looking of them all. Less trim, cleaner fender edges, better greenhouse. The base model outshone everything above it.

The 130 Coupe never made it to the United States, surprising given how lucrative the market was, and how well-suited it was in theory. Fiat did have plans for that territory, a US-focused fastback body was in the works before the oil crisis put it on hold. And then the failure of the 130 series cancelled it.

Less than 4,500 Coupes came off the line. Pininfarina had hoped the Opera might be taken up for production to replace the four door, but despite the plaudits Fiat demurred. The Maremma shooting-break never had a chance.

Fiat had over-reached and missed completely. The body may have been something extraordinary, but the rest of the car was just ordinary.

Against the competition at this level, good looks aren’t enough.

We got these in Australia and I remember them since early childhood. I’ve seen a handful on the road recently, one I remember in particular being driven by a very attractive woman because it was black. Never seen one in black before. Red ones neither. Until this one.

Part of me want to get it off the road, and the other wants to just leave it alone. Restoring it is probably beyond the owner’s capacity, or the body’s condition. Let it sit there and catch its owner’s eye, so that they might bask in the memory of its magnificence.

107 Comments

I just love your pieces like this, because they cover territory that is immensely interesting to me but I just don’t have what it takes to tackle it properly. That includes time as well as aptitude.

Needless to say, the 130 Coupe made a big impression on me too when it arrived. And its legacy was all-too obvious, including the new B Bodies. And agreed: the ’77 Chevy was the best of the bunch; too bad the coupe ended up so fussy. I know folks are enamored of its bent-glass rear window, but the roof is just not right.

I could go on, but I can’t right now. But I will end with one minor criticism of the 130 Coupe: the C pillar is just a bit too thick and heavy for me. In literally every shot of it, it seems to weigh down the car at that point. It should have been a bit thinner. And the other cars inspired by it often prove that point. For that matter, the Camargue’s C pillar is actually better, unlike the rest of it.

So for me, while the 130 Coupe is certainly beautiful and seminal, it does not achieve the degree of perfection that Batista’s Florida coupe does.

I’m not crazy about the ’77-’79 Chevy coupe roofline either – to me, it makes the car look heavier than the sedan. Now if we could combine the Chevy front and rear styling with the base Buick LeSabre coupe roof, we’d have something.

It could be done. Pontiac shared the roofline with Buick on the Bonneville and Catalina. As the Pontiac shared dooe shells with Chevrolet, One could just bolt on a Chevy front clip and with a bit of metalwork massage the Chevy rear clip onto a Catalina Coupe. Interior bits would also fit right in. Might be more work than value, but it can be done.

I see where you are with the c-pillar, and I like all three, fat Fiat, medium Florida and skinny Caprice concept. I suppose my own personal preference is reflected in the words of my esteemed colleague, J P Cavanaugh – I too prefer some meat in the c-pillar.

What a great and comprehensive piece. Thank you. I agree with Paul’s comment about the C-Pillar (look how much thinner it is on the 365 GT4, which I personally think is beautifully resolved, but that’s another story…) and have also always thought that the roof was maybe an inch or so too high. That said, it was (and still is) a remarkably refined design. I hadn’t realized how influential the car was, not just with the obvious things like the Gamma coupe and Camargue, but also with the GM B-Body and the Gen II Ford Granada. The latter, on the surface a humdrum upper-level rep car (at least in the UK) was in fact a really refined design, made more so in light of its blobular Scorpio replacement.

Too bad the 130, as a car, was no great shakes.

Does anyone in the CC universe know if the stunning Opera 4 door prototype survives? As good a coupe as it was, the sedan is arguably even better.

+1 on the sedan. Actually Don’s piece showed us two Operas. One had a single-piece glass in the rear door, and the second had a fixed triangular window as well. Modification for possible production perhaps? It would have made a very nice second-gen 130 sedan.

The 130 Opera is beyond beautiful. Should have gone into production (but probably would’ve bombed). I really like the shooting-brake too. PF did the same thing with the Peugeot 504, dubbing the shooting-brake “Riviera”. Buick dodged a bullet on that one (or they could have called their next model “505”, just to get even).

Thanks guy. I believe the Opera is still in the hands of Pininfarina. The Maremma is in private hands (apparently there are three) and there is also a pre-production Coupe used by Gianni Agnelli in a unique rose tint somewhere out there as well.

GN, I once had a copy of that 77 Motor Trend annual and lost it. I’d been scouring the internet for this piece because I remembered the Mitchell para, and then you mercifully posted the articles. Very much appreciated.

Thanks for this great read Don. You have quite thoroughly covered a styling era that I have not done a lot of reading or thinking about.

I will offer a counterpoint in that I have always considered the 1977-79 Chevrolet coupe a better shape than that on the contemporary Buick. I have always preferred an aesthetic that puts some meat in the C pillar. I have also preferred the 2 door Chevy to the 4 door. But then I have always been a bit of a contrarian. 🙂

This was a great treat to wake up with this morning. Is it just me, or does the black and white design sketch at the top of the article just reek of first generation Toyota Celica coupe? Maybe inlarged 20%, but eerily similar to these eyes..

This may be the best write up I`ve read on here in the past 6-12 months…but then I’m a huge fan of 2 door coupes.

I did not know Ford had produced the Grenada as a 2 door sedan, I have only seen pictures of the 2 door fastback coupes.

Oddly enough, a casual description of the 130 Coupe wouldn’t make it sound all that special. I mean, you have a fairly sizeable collection of boxes/rectangles that manage to be perfectly arranged and/or proportioned. A car that is longer than the sedan it’s closely related to…and does not suffer for the relationship.

Not sure how accurate it is though seem to recall the Fiat 130 being planned to receive more sophisticated and powerful V6 and V8 engines, as for the existing V6 engine did Fiat intend to produce a larger version with roughly the same displacement as used in the Abarth 030?

You want to find Dante Giacosa’s ‘Forty Years of Design with Fiat’. He left in 1969, and to my reading he was the backbone of Fiat’s golden period. The book discusses a lot of engine work – Giacosa was more of a designer in the Issigonis mold but I think you already know that.

I suspect there were plans for the US version to be more powerful, but I know so little about that phase. The Ford 302 fits right into the Coupe’s engine bay, in fact I have an article in ‘Performance Street Car’ magazine where someone did just that over here.

Seems a V8 was considered for the Fiat 130 prior to Dante Giacosa settling for the V6, apparently the Fiat 130 V6 engine also shares some relation with the Fiat 128 SOHC Inline-4.

If indeed the case then logically a hypothetical V8 designed by Aurelio Lampredi would essentially be a doubled up Fiat Twin-Cam engine, potentially displacing from 2.6-litre to 4-litres up to around 4.2-4.4-litres or even more (the 4-litre+ variants based on 2-litre+ Twin-Cam engines used in motorsport).

They could potentially create a V8 from the Fiat 128 SOHC like Fiat already did with the Fiat 130 V6, though not sure it would compare well with a V8 derived from the Fiat Twin-Cam.

The above is merely conjecture based on what Aurelio Lampredi already did (with the 130 V6 and 128 SOHC engines) as well as the enlarged 2-litre+ Twin-Cam unit used in the Lancia 037 Evo II, am otherwise unlearned.

I don’t think the 130 Coupe was a let-down in it’s overall qualities. FIAT really had their act together back in the days and knew how to do great cars. And this was one of them. The one thing that did it in, just like the equally impressive 130 Sedan, was its complete lack of brand cachet. A lesson Citroën learned at the same time with its SM and one VW would learn with the Phaeton 30 years later.

Fun fact: the 130 Coupe has one of the coolest features ever to grace a passenger vehicle. It had a lever below the steering wheel that allowed to open the passenger door remotely. So the Signore did not have to get out of the car when picking up the Signora after she was done shopping Via del Corso. Brilliant.

The badge didn’t help things much.As we were to see during the time these existed It was Mercedes and Jaguar who dominated in this class.Australia in the years that followed knew if it wasn’t a MERCEDES/JAGUAR/BMW it would not work in this end of the market.The 130 Fiat,Peugeot 604 and later on Honda with the Legend in the eighties and nineties and the very final versions of the Mazda 929 when that went upmarket from competing with local cars and baby beemers to being with the big boys were all examples of that.a good effort for it’s time though

But it was also one of the things that has led to the decline of the carrozzerie. The work they were themselves producing was becoming too generic.

That’s the kicker. Pininfarina could push the boundaries and pioneer designs but they’d use it for 10-20 years with every model they applied it to, and by this period where the influential design houses were pushing the origami ruler drawn look, the resulting production models barely stood apart from in-house designs to come a few years later, who could pretty easily emulate it themselves.

I’d love to see the front and rear clips of the 77 Impala bolted/grafted onto the 77 Lesabre coupe body. I never cared for the bent glass/baskethandle/hoffmiester kinked mess on the production coupe, I actually prefer the boxier 1980 redesign to it.

Wow, very engrossing article! It’s like reading a marvellous novel that left you very satisfied with excellent writing and morsel of fascinating information.

That Pininfarina Modulo! When I was a boy in Freiburg im Breisgau, I saw the model car catalogue for 1972. I came across Modulo and couldn’t contain my excitement. My parents and I visited several stores, looking for one to buy. After a several weeks of agonising patience (impossible for a six-year-old boy), my mum found it and bought it right away. I carried it in its protective case everywhere like a sacred object. It was 15-20 cm in length and was made out of metal and plastic with functional door and wheels. One of the neighbour kids ‘helped’ himself to it after we settled down in Dallas, Texas two years later, which seemed to be common phenomenon since many of them had never seen German toys before.

The second generation Ford Granada is for me the pinnacle of late 1970s design that reverted to simplicity and sensibility. Same for Chevrolet Caprice/Impala (1977-1979), too.

Um, I don’t see Chevrolet Malibu coupé (1978-1983) in the article, which closely resembles the design study of Caprice, and that has the look of Fiat 130 Coupé.

The Fiat 130 coupe was a beautifully designed car, but a rare one too, and most of the ones I have seen are silver, so the red is different. Weren’t those Modulo concept cars used in movies or TV shows as “cars of the future?” Looking at the Lancia Beta Coupe and Monte Carlo here, they do look like they should have been badged “Fiat” given their size. Very comprehensive account, and one that highlights a lot of the cars I grew up with.

Wonderful piece on a wonderful car, and I love that interior too. This has long been a favourite and I have some shots of one in the files, filed under “would love to write up if I had enough background”. But no need for that now. Don has given us a thorough piece of work on the 130, and putting into so fully in the design context of the time.

Attempted copies like the Granada (good enough but not that good) just show how inherently right this car was.

Only 4500 built, but still one of my top cars from the 1970s. My favourite Italian car – very possibly.

Ford Australia ran that Granada body until 87 no two door version though, pity it could have been great but two door cars dont sell in OZ as they found out previously, an opportunity missed. great write up.

I have always liked the 130 Coupe and nearly bought one back in the 1990’s – I was scared off me maintaining that engine. I like the Camargue too – it is not as accomplished a design as the 130, but it was so different from other RR products at the time and was interesting.

That Buick LeSabre Coupe has a nice profile but what is that awful silver B body Coupe? That roof line and rear section is judt hideous!

I liked the Camargue, too…as long as I was looking at photographs of one. It’s one of those cars that looks good (at least, to my eyes) in photos, and particularly in side view. When I finally saw one in real life, however, I found it to be bulbous and awkward from certain angles.

The “awful silver B body coupe” you refer to is a Chevrolet Caprice, from 1974 if I’m not mistaken.

I’m going to have to bookmark this one and read it again several times. So much to see, and me with only two eyes…

First off, the Mk2 Grenada / Fiat 130 link — never seen it; now cannot unsee it. Brilliant deduction, Don Sherlock. The 604, Camargue and Ferrari links to the 130 were much more obvious, but I must say the Fiat really trumps both of the prestigious princesses and the frog. No wonder Rolls were ticked off. Strange that the European car that got the most “mileage” out of this design was the Ferrari — all the others, 130 included, were pretty poor sellers.

The influence on Mitchell’s designs is now also clear as day. I knew I liked those cars’ rear ends for some reason. Just couldn’t quite put my finger on it. As with most rear ends. They never did get these GM cars’ greenhouse right, unfortunately. A perennial American problem, but let’s not get political.

There is one car possibly worthy of mention within this context: the 1969 Tatra 613 prototype coupe by Vignale. It’s as 3-box as any rear-engined Tatra ever got. Not a PF design to be sure, and it does have a bit more kinship to the 125 Executive than to the 130 in some ways, but up to the B-pillars, it’s got an eerie proto-130 feel to it, IMHO.

Thank you for this insight into a largely ignored corner of the car world.

I too have always admired the car but, and this is significant for one who invariably disregards advice, the first hand stories from current and former owners terrify me. And then there’s the impossibility of finding any parts at any price. There have been a few sedans for sale lately, but like the coupes they are usually too far gone to live with and impossible to fix. See? There’s me thinking there’s a way. Must. Stop. Now.

Yes, leave Old Red there for its ornamental qualities – maybe dust it over in a better colour would be my only request.

Don what a great read! Although I have to admit that I have never been a huge fan of European designs in general, there is no denying the 130 is awesome design. It’s articles like this that have broadened my horizons to appreciate and give a lot more respect to cars that I knew little about.

Write-ups that analyse the design of cars are interesting reads for me. Design really is not something that falls into my wheelhouse of expertise, beyond knowing what I like and what I don’t. I have always been more of a mechanical, specifications and history type of car guy when it comes to my knowledge and expertise. Yet, it is the styling that really draws me to the classics I love.

Two comments about your article. First, I am glad to see you appreciate the curves of the 1971 Plymouth B-bodies. Far too often anything with curves is simply classed as “bloated” and therefore unworthy. I too have always liked this design but don’t think it gets the proper appreciation.

Second, I have long been of the opinion that the Chevrolet’s were the best looking B-bodies, but as time has gone on, I really have come to appreciate the simply elegance of the Lesabre coupe roof line. While I still prefer the Chevrolet 2-door overall, the Lesabre does have a cleaner roof design. I always liked the Chevrolet semi-fastback rear window, but as time goes on I can see that it’s design is not as pure as the Buick’s roofline. That said, the Chevrolet used in this article has a god-awful vinyl top. For me, B-bodies are best served sans gingerbread. Here is a better example of the Chevrolet.

Thanks Vince. The Sebring is one of my faves. CA ran an interview with Herlitz (Oct 01) with a host of sketches and clays. He knew what he had shaped, but the world was moving in a different direction. I’d put this shape – particularly the detailing – as a major (probably subliminal) influence on cinema sci-fi vehicles. Waaaaaay ahead of its time.

I think the Chevy roofline would have worked better if it remained a hardtop, there are too many pillars (I’m counting the line of the glass as one). And I forgot about the Catalina, it’s pretty amazing how much of an effect fender skirts have on the more common Bonneville profile, I never think of it and the Buick sharing rooflines even though it’s so clear.

Given the timeline of development, and the broad involvement of the various Italian design houses, it’s not always obvious to me who influenced whom, or perhaps I should say what influenced what. But to see it all laid out this way was fascinating. And not to minimize Don’s research and analysis, it sure was a lot harder trying to follow this 40 years ago with hurried readings of Road & Track, Autoweek, and perhaps a lucky scan (visual, not digital) of a European magazine in a big city bookstore. I was aware of the 130 coupe as a styling standout when it was launched, even though it was not sold in the US and I’m not sure I’ve ever noticed one in two trips to Italy since it was launched. However, I will disagree with Don on two points: I think this car would have been a huge flop in the US, and I think the 504 Coupe is a more interesting design, that totally redeemed the pre-Bangle squashed butt of the 504 sedan.

Bertone was working with VW back in the late sixties. Still haven’t figured out the picture there yet, the nexus between the Audi 50 (Polo), Golf and stuff like this cleaned up version of the 125 Executive.

Wow! I learn so much in one article. Thank you, Don. Now I understand why I prefer the 4-door Impala to the two, and the two door Malibu over the later four door with the formal rear roofline. Each is more faithful to the original Fiat.

I do really, really like that early Impala two door sketch and wonder if GM would have had a worthy successor to the 1961-1962 Bel Air bubbletop if they had gone with that. Too much brougham influence to take that chance?

And in a CC first for me, I have been for a ride in that very car (the red one). It must have been about 6 years ago. The owner had spent upwards of $8k rebuilding the engine, even while doing a lot of the work himself. The engine had expired after a 125mph run when the belt snapped. He spent a fair bit getting rust removed from inside the rear arches. As far as he knew, it was red from new. It rode beautifully, sounded lovely (if slightly nasally through a stainless system), is airconditioned, and is cooled by a huge Landcruiser radiator. For some reason has no power steering. It didn’t feel quick. The owner, an amusing guy well aware of the folly of his car, reckoned it averaged about 12mpg. It got driven daily.

From unreliable memory, the fuel pump broke, and he couldn’t get one, and then life intervened. He took to driving the ’63 Falcon you’ll see in the same street. The rego expired, and the rust woke from it’s slumber. It looks like rust has been badly removed before, the way filler is curling off the roof. The dents you can see are, sadly, vandalism. It’s not yet quite irrepairable, as mechanically it should be ok. The body would need a lot of skill, or money. Or both.

I’ll try and catch up with the owner, and alert him to this piece. I think I recall him liking the car now as “street sculpture” or somesuch, but his own words and views will provide much more amusement (which I’ll post here). I’ve always liked folk who have a passion for something obscure like a gorgeous, failed, rusting, money-draining Fiat, but who have the sense of proportion to see the inherent funny side of their passion. To many of us CC-types Don, this car is exquisite; to most others, well, my brother-in-law once asked me if the red car “was a Leyland P76,” ie: an old, square-ish car. The owner laughed heartily when I told him that, and said “Tell him no – it’s worse!”

Great article…I own one of these cars. I always say “I have a Fiat 130 Coupe that’s “doing” me up”. However because it has such a great history, with the steel coming from Russia, the engine by Lampredi, the design by “pininfarina’s”, Paulo Martin (whom I have had email exchanges with) and the lovely coach built interior with pleated roof lining, great road handling for such a large car with little or no under/oversteer I find it easy to forgive it’s lack of power and sometimes ungainly looks…wherever I go I am asked about the car, or told by people that they used to own one (and always, but always that they regretted selling the car) I have had people video the car as I am driving down the road, ask to sit in the car, take photos and recently I have been getting offers to buy the car. I have traced all the previous owners except the original and have an extensive dairy including photos which I update regularly as work is completed.

In regards the C pillar…it is in my view one of the defining elements of the cars design, without which, would consign it to that of every other car’s “look”…(in regards the C pillar that is)

This automobile has history, and in my humble opinion “sits” very well in my garage…and there it will stay for many more enjoyable, perhaps at times frustrating, years to come.

Great to hear from you Glen and genuine congrats for your continued commitment to ownership. I don’t regret selling mine, but nor do I regret owning it. This has been my dream car ever since I spotted one from the back seat of my father’s 125 around the age of four. I could spot the similarities instantly, but it was so superior in looks even to a kid back then. I’ll write that COAL one day.

Perchance, would you be able to confirm C107’s fun fact about the remote door release under the steering column on yours?

Thanks Don…probably one of the best articles on the 130 Coupe that I have read. In regards the remote door release…yes they were sold as such unfortunately this was not the case when the vehicles were converted to R/H drive (at least here in Australia). Interestingly I can remember reading an article in the very early 80’s when the XD Falcon first came out and the writer compared the XD with having some similarities to the 130 Coupe…I owned an Auto accessory shop at the time and I also owned a 130 Coupe. They were something else back then…

Thanks Glen. Martin Buckley is probably the most knowledgeable journalist on this car. His articles in old C&SC and the other one were my entree to cognoscentidom. It is he that states there were three Maremmas built and I trust his word.

Ah, there you go. Perfect attitude, Glen Solly. I have great respect for owners who are honest about their car; the 130 is not at all the best car ever produced, but it has it’s really good points and the looks are just extraordinary. If monied enough, one would be “sitting well” in my garage tommorow.

I’ll gloss over your “sometimes ungainly looks” comment (good lord, really?), and agree with great vigour with you about the rightness of the C-pillar and the assertion it wouldn’t look like it does without it, in fact, I’ll go so far as to say Paul Niedemeyer is clearly mad and deranged to say otherwise.

Enjoy your drive, and on the days (or weeks) it won’t, admire the art.

Thanks justy baum, I missed your comment earlier…I guess in defence of my comment re “ungainly” I will invoke the, “in my opinion” clause before ducking for cover. This has been one of the best, if not the best articles I have read on this car. Yes, even better than those that I have read from Martin Buckley because of the depth the article goes into in regards the comparisons. It opened my eyes to concepts that I had not considered that are part of the design of this automobile.

In regards “perfect attitude”, thank you, and don’t worry I am well aware of this vehicles shortcomings…I have the invoices to prove it.

Kudos for a really fantastic and well-done article. And, of course, greatly appreciate all the accompanying photos and illustrations. I greatly appreciate all the in-depth research and the related styling approach of all the other auto makers.

As an American with a life-long Mopar preference in cars, can say I greatly liked Herlitz’s 1971 Plymouth Satellite coupes very much back in the day. And, must say it still looks fresh to me even today. And, at the same time must share that I do very much like the Fiat 130 Coupe, and especially the red one at the beginning of the article. Am in agreement that it is one of the most attractive cars ever built.

Almost forgot to mention that I was into both cars and aircraft from a very early age. I greatly liked the tailfin era cars back in the day. The reason I appreciate this write-up so much is because in my teen years I wanted to work for one of the auto makers in design and styling.

The 1971 Plymouth Satellite coupe is just the usual Chrysler tragedy. If not for the 1962 downsizing debacle which put the two years behind GM, then Dodge’s insistence on getting a ponycar, Chrysler might have able to get their updated intermediates to market a couple years sooner. Imagine how a ’71 Satellite coupe might have done if it had been in production in 1969. If only…

Have you seen the full-size models of the designs Cadillac considered for what became the 1975 Seville? The 1973 La Scala is surely the missing link in the intellectual chain from the Fiat 130 Coupé and the downsized B-bodies; although the Seville ultimately adopted a rigid, upright backlight, you can see the progression quite clearly. See http://www.gminsidenews.com/forums/f21/cadillac-lasalle-lascala-design-studies-218441/ for photos.

Oh — one minor bit of fuss: When you’re referring to Mitsubishi’s Colt here, it’d be appropriate to call it Colt Galant, since at that point, “Colt” was still a brand name rather than a model. (Mitsubishi of course muddied the waters by treating “Colt” as a model name in certain markets and a marque in others.)

Cheers Aaron. Those 73 La Scalas are outstanding, so frigging sleek. I’ve seen the bustleback concept but not those. They took things in the opposite direction completely with the Seville. Thanks for the Colt headsup.

Mitchell would have argued that the Seville was a variation rather than an opposite direction. Even with its upright formal backlight, the Seville’s theme (of which the designers, including Mitchell, were quite proud) was curved forms stretched over crisp lines; GM called it “the sheer look.” It’s something that’s much more apparent in the metal than in photos, which tend to have a flattening effect. The relationship to the themes of the 130 Coupé remains evident, even if the effect is less perceptibly imitative.

The production Seville was undoubtedly more in tune with American tastes of the time, but I do prefer La Scala’s narrower grille and airier greenhouse. Also, La Scala did an surprisingly credible job of translating the coupe idiom to four doors, sort of Cadillac’s answer to the Lagonda.

Nailed it with the Lagonda. Two-door looks better than the four. Its like someone stood up in a meeting and said ‘let’s take everything dynamic off the 73’. The Seville is a clean shape, but it represents a whole nuther thing.

Some elements of La Scala probably wouldn’t have translated to production in any case, limited by the hardpoints of the modified X-body platform. Also, while it ends up looking not unlike the 1992 Seville in this regard, La Scala’s narrow grille might have made Cadillac management very nervous, perhaps for good reason. Since the Seville was already a “small” Cadillac, it was already under pressure to prove its marque bona fides.

Great to see a long good work about the Fiat 130, although some minor faults are to be found.
Most 130 Coupe’s were manual, not just 5. The gearbox could be had in the 130 Berlina too and was a ZF dogleg 5-speed.
And to call the underpinnings of the body “ordinary” is plain wrong, it was ahead of it’s time with torsional spring front & indipendent rear suspension, magnesium wheels and vented disc brakes on all four wheels. For the time, 3200cc, 165hp and lots of torque was more than adequate in it’s class even compared to german offerings.

Other later cars of the idiom not to be forgotten, Peugeot 505 adn Fiat’s own Argenta.

Thanks Per. The number of manuals I’ve pulled from my head and can’t recall the source. Martin Buckley quotes ‘a handful’ in Classic Cars Dec 98, and states none were made in RHD in Classic and Sports Car April 87. He also says there were only 7 RHD manual saloons, so I’m not sure that most of the Fiat 130 Coupes were manual.

The car drives very nicely around town. The suspension arrangement was quite stable and gave an enjoyable ride straight and cornering. But only up to 80-90 kmh. After that the engine lost its spark and wind noise – which I normally don’t care about – was noticeable.

I compare it with a 2300 wagon, which I also drove around town as well as 800 km Adelaide to Melbourne. With a column manual, that was a better driver. The engine had that fantastic Fiat thing where you needed to keep it in the upper band of revs. The 130 just did not enjoy being held at high revs, though as you say the torque was good – for around town.

Right now, I own a W116 280 SE. Similar size, similar output. Better highway cruiser although it doesn’t love hills.

The Fiat was nice car to drive, but not as excellent allround as it needed to be.

Having looked through a number of road tests – this site DOES promote the consumption of time – they all mention the availability of the 5 speed (one saying it was extra cost, go figure), but not one ever seems to have been tested. Perhaps the sheer expense of the car precluded the sale to buyers not accustomed to anything, let alone a gearbox, requiring Things You Have To Do Yourself.

I was very surprised in my brief ride in the 130 when the motor didn’t sound happy being wound out. In fact, it wasn’t silky smooth either, and so despite the magic of the words Lampredi and the alloys and the appearance and the lower revs sound of the thing, it’s consumptive and apparently fragile nature probably means it may not have been the best design ever made. Unlike the body shape.

Ok, you’ve got my attention now justy baum. I have attached a photo of a 130 Coupe fitted with a V8…possibly what I should do (but never will because I like the Lampredi engine)

In my view the Lampredi engine was perhaps as little as only 20 horsepower short, which would have made it a different car. There is an owner here in Australia who I am in contact with who has had his engine capacity increased and stroked…I wait with baited breath to hear how it performs. There is at least 2 engines that I know of that have been fitted with triple Webers similar/same as the Dino Ferrari.

I do think your comments are quite accurate regards the engine…it sounds so very, very lovely as it growls its way out of my driveway with just a feather of the accelerator…

Don Andreina

Posted October 8, 2017 at 10:07 PM

Glen, keep us in the loop with regards the car with the larger capacity. Maybe even a capsule if you’re in the mood to write for us.